What Does Atheism Profit Atheists?

[Dave Ellis]

What would you call evidently true?

That which is supported by the evidence.

 

[Dave Ellis]

No, the movie is trying to reduce the time our Lord was on Earh to the lowest human instincts.

Then you need to rewatch the movie or read what the pythons said about the point of the movie themselves.

 

[Dave Ellis]

So you are a humanist. Which is fine. Why don't you criticize science too for a change then?

What aspect of science in particular?

 

[just a believing guy]

What aspect of science in particular?

You can choose. I know that you are aware that science does damage.

 

[just a believing guy]

Then you need to rewatch the movie or read what the pythons said about the point of the movie themselves.

I'd rely on the subtlety of my intelligence instead. By the way Cleese said he was an antitheist atheist. So much for the pythons, Christianity, and reality.

 

[just a believing guy]

That which is supported by the evidence.

There are many kinds of evidence. Are you ready to accept only the material ones?

 

[just a believing guy]

I'm not parodying you, I'm asking an honest question to point out the error in your argument.

You're saying the bible is credible because it was the first mass produced book.

However just because something is popular or mass produced has no bearing on its truth value. If Spider-Man was the first popular mass produced book, that doesn't make it any more credible or real. Same goes for the bible.

You're committing the appeal to popularity fallacy in this argument.

No, what I'm saying that both Germany and Switzerland (remember the Red Cross society) wouldn't have been as prosperous as they are today without the Bible.

 

[Larniavc]

Well, your thinking that they are wrong doesn't mean that atheists are right.

As an atheist I would not claim to be right: only currently unconvinced.

 

[Larniavc]

Would I be more self-aware if I acknoledged that atheism is right? No, thanks.

You would be if you listened to what atheists say about themselves.

You seem unable to conceive that people may think in way other than which you imagine them to.

 

[Larniavc]

To me, you're just Larnievc. For all I know you might be a shoe salesman who posts when business in shop is slow.

How would that make any difference.

Judgemental, much?

 

[Larniavc]

It's a pointless demand to ask you to point out specifically which fallacy I've committed after you accused me of committing a fallacy?

That's not at all an unreasonable request, and one you seem awful reluctant to address.

I did not commit a fallacy, if you still think I did then back up your words or concede the point.

Attempting to dodge as you currently are doing is simple intellectual dishonesty.

What ever you say to this guy he will imply you are a liar when backed into a corner.

The discussion then becomes pointless.

 

[just a believing guy]

You would be if you listened to what atheists say about themselves.

You seem unable to conceive that people may think in way other than which you imagine them to.

No, what I am indeed unable is to see is how people can bash Christianity with no real reason.

 

[just a believing guy]

As an atheist I would not claim to be right: only currently unconvinced.

Currently unconvinced is dangerously close to being an agnostic.

 

[just a believing guy]

How would that make any difference.

Judgemental, much?

Why would I be judgemental?

 

[Larniavc]

Oddly enough I'm an atheist, yet I'm not homosexual, I don't persecute Christians, I haven't done anything I'm aware of to usher in Satan's kingdom (especially considering I don't believe Satan exists either), I have criticized Jesus but I'm not sure if I've ever insulted him, and I haven't destroyed America.

So if that's the point of atheism, I apparently missed the memo.

Lastly, if god and hell are actually real, I don't see how acting as if they weren't would cause you to avoid hell or live without fear of going there.

If you know for sure those things are real, basic logic would dictate that you should be really careful wherever possible to avoid going there. Blantantly disregarding reality would be foolish.

Luckily, I have no reason to believe either god or hell is actually real.

I think you may have misinterpreted my meaning in my previous post.

I was putting myself in the shoes of JABG.

 

[quatona]

Currently unconvinced is dangerously close to being an agnostic.

If you´d listen, you´d know by now that atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive (theism and agnosticism aren´t either, btw.).

 

[just a believing guy]

If you´d listen, you´d know by now that atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive (theism and agnosticism aren´t either, btw.).

That's why I said they ''dangerously close''.

 

[quatona]

That's why I said they ''dangerously close''.

Not being mutually exclusive is something different than "close". ("Green" and "made of metal" aren´t mutually exclusive, but they aren´t "close" by any stretch of the term).

And you may want to explain what the word "dangerous" is supposed to do in there.

 

[just a believing guy]

Not being mutually exclusive is something different than "close". ("Green" and "made of metal" aren´t mutually exclusive, but they aren´t "close" by any stretch of the term).

And you may want to explain what the word "dangerous" is supposed to do in there.

Of course, what matters is the context. And the context is all about God.

 

[quatona]

Of course, what matters is the context. And the context is all about God.

I guess there´s no point in explaining to you another time how "atheism" and "agnosticism" are answering completely different qestions.